14 Comments

So, if we all just discuss those things that you want us to discuss to make your job easier then it would work. You make another ID, have a faux conversation and then claim victory. Gotta love transparency.

That's not coming together. That's straight up coopting. I don't care how many ways that you try to twist this, it always has the same end result.

I welcome any willing to support a raise in minimum wage, a raise in the tax rates for the wealthy (to pay off the debt), willing to support medical care based on need not "worth". Do you think there are any on the right that feel the same way?

Perhaps not. But I would reply that Occupy cannot achieve every goal under the Sun. Its purpose should be to remain apolitical and concentrate on issues that can unite the right and the left, like working together to put pressure to remove corruption in politics. This is its force. The idea to unite the 99% over common ground.

The social issues you raise are important, but, in my opinion, they should be fought in the theater of politics with a political party, and in the streets with affinity groups to help the unfortunate.

I fear that if Occupy spreads its wings to wide, the focus will be lost, and, with it, what makes it so special.

It's a double edged sword. If we raise all kinds of issues that the right does not agree with, then we lose them. And, this means we also lose them for the issues on which they could participate with us, like removing corruption in politics, and aiming towards more transparency in government. The more issues we try to deal with, the more division we create.

Ideally, another group would be started to deal with far left issues like the implementation of socialism.

This spreading of our actions has weakened Occupy dearly.

The strongest movements in history were always those that had a few clear goals, usually one. Occupy started with corruption in Wall Street, but then spread out all over the map.

I don't think we need to dilute that at all. There are poor people from all political affiliations, and a lot of this inequality is due to corruption in politics and in business. We could certainly present the problem in a way that would get the backing from potentially anyone with any political affiliation.

Why annihilate the potential support of right wingers with name calling? I don't understand this at all. If a right winger comes here, just use proper argumentation and explain what Occupy is in a calm fashion, just like you would with anyone who doesn't understand what the protest is all about. They certainly are allowed to agree or not. There's no need to call people names and use profanity. Especially names that are labels like "right wing shill" designed to attack about half the country in one broad stroke.

I want right wingers to come here and discuss issues. What's the point of always preaching to the choir? It's good to be able to interact with people that have different opinions. At worse we'll disagree, at best some of them might change their mind and join our ranks. Certainly, there's no need to attack them with stereotypes. Every individual is complex. You can't just box people into left or right. Life isn't that simple.

I welcome any willing to support a raise in minimum wage, a raise in the tax rates for the wealthy (to pay off the debt), willing to support medical care based on need not "worth". Do you think there are any on the right that feel the same way?

Or how about this, public funding for public elections, to get the corruption out anyone from the right ready?

Those issues are important, but we should use another group than Occupy to fight for them. Why not form a political party, or push one on the left to adopt these ideas?

Bringing such issues in Occupy only serves to divide our ranks. Furthermore, these are issues which are better addressed by political parties who can put real pressure to change laws, not by Occupy which is a protest movement that doesn't make demands.

The more issues we tackle, the more we become separated. In the end, if Occupy takes a stance on many varying issues, then what we've become is another political party. Political parties can never serve the 99%. They only serve those who agree with the platform.

It's much stronger to take a stance on a few issues that everybody can agree on. There are issues of the sort, and Occupy is the perfect vehicle to tackle them.

All great protests which succeeded had one or a few clear goals. It never works when you start wanting to tackle everything under the Sun.

Someone should start a "no war" movement, there was one in the sixties.

I was so happy to see a movement born that addresses wealth inequality, we have never had one of those before I sure hope it stays on focus and gets something done about the biggest threat the world faces, Monarchy.